Public vs. Private (schooling)

[Guest]

Disclaimer: I'm very biased on this issue

 

 

A number of factors fueled my desire to start this thread. (I have a feeling we might have debated this a while back, but we could all benefit from the addition of new perspectives on the forum).

 

My position: staunchely anti-private.

 

Opinions?

[Guest]

OK Gayane, here we go...

 

This isn't simply an idle discussion for me, I'm living this issue right now--just yesterday I sent in applications to schools that cost over $8,000 per year just for kindergarden, so it's a big deal.

 

Let me state where I am coming from:

 

1) My wife and I both fully went to public schools (and in fact, public universities--CSUN and CSULB).

 

2) She went to good public schools in the Valley, I went to, in retrospect, lousy, underfunded ones. However, we both received good educations due to the "honors", "gifted" and/or AP classes.

 

3) We both believe in public schools and really want to send our son to one.

 

4) I have two cousins that teach at a low socio-economic public school in the Valley. Both are excellent individuals and I'm sure excellent teachers. In addition, my wife's first cousin is incredibly involved with the state-mandated changes that are taking place. (Half-Breed, if you're reading this, did you have to attend a workshop downtown or near LAX? If so, you probably saw my wife's cousin--she's running them).

 

 

Now, having listed those, our son is not a social statement. Faced with the trend of many involved parents pulling their kids out of public school, and the increased competition for admissions at universities, what else can we do???

 

I'm sure you're familiar with Verdugo Woodlands elementary. You'd think that would be a good school. Our neighbor had his two sons there and pulled them out after a few years due to the types of children (really, the types of PARENTS) involved. It absolutely depresses us that we cannot and should not send him there.

 

The problem is the parents. If we'd all put our kids back in, the public schools would be better. I live in a nice neighborhood (the president of GCC is one of my neighbors, for christsakes), you'd think I should be able to send my son to the local school

[Guest]

Public, simply because I'm suffering through it right now Problem with public is that you have teachers that just don't give a care. They're more concerned about enforcing their classroom rules (like NO LINING UP AT THE DOOR!! I DISMISS YOU, NOT THE BELL!!!) than seeing you show comprehension. I don't know how bad, or good, private is. But if it doesn't have a prison-like atmosphere, I'm all for private. Then of course the uniforms kill the entire social class scene, which allows the kids to focus on eduaction, not 'what am I gonna wear tomorrow?'.

[Guest]

One advantage of private schools is the ability to get rid of both problem students and problem teachers. My junior high and high school had some teachers that were absolute jokes. People that had no place being in a classroom. This may be more a union issue rather than public vs. private.

 

Regarding uniforms, I don't like the idea of cookie cutter students. I think expressing yourself through clothes is fine (as long as they are not distracting nor offensive to others). The advantage to uniforms is that it allows kids without much money to not feel ashamed at school that they do not have the latest fashions (my mom really had a tough time with this when she was in school).

 

[This message has been edited by Pilafhead (edited October 18, 2000).]

[Guest]

My impression is that in high-income neighborhoods the public schools are fine. But what about the not high income hoods. The low-income people I think need private schools more than the others. To me, the vouchers, if they are structured properly, make a lot of sense.

 

In your case Mike, since you have to take your son out, isn't it fair to expect to get your school portion of the local or other applicable taxes back, so that to use them to pay the high tuition you face in the private school?

[Guest]

I didn't want to get into the voucher issue, because I'm not sure where I stand. I like the free-market economy aspect of it, but there's a very high possibility it will only benefit the wealthy.

 

Parents should have a choice, but essentially what will happen is that my $8,000 for private school will become $12,000 under Proposition 38. Also, some private schools may not accept vouchers, because by accepting public funds they then have to operate under different rules.

 

Although CA public schools are guaranteed national average per-capita funding, there is no indication that the national average is or will be adequate. If we are currently spending more than that, and teachers are not being given appropriate salaries, what will happen with Prop 38?

 

There is also the very possible danger of less-than admirable people setting up terrible schools in the poor communities. Parents in these areas could easily get duped.

 

So, yes I would like my school taxes back, but if it is going to be at the expense of less-fortunte kids and families, they can keep their $4,000.

 

In a perfect world, vouchers are a good idea, but since this world is not perfect, who knows?

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
My impression is that in high-income neighborhoods the public schools are fine. But what about the not high income hoods. The low-income people I think need private schools more than the others. To me, the vouchers, if they are structured properly, make a lot of sense.

---

I think the conventional wisdom on this is that the majority of low-income kids would remain in public schools. At least, most arguments against Prop 38 make that assumption.

[Guest]

I am not familiar with the details of the voucher system. I am just for the principle. But the main point I want to make is that the public schools in high-income areas are pretty good, and the overwhelming majority of the residents in these areas is very supportive of their schools, and provide even value-added services, unless they have religious preferences. With vouchers or not, or with some other system or not, the sufferers are the ones in low-income areas.

[Guest]

As a public school teacher I guess I have to put in my two cents. As I told Pilafhead before, there are a lot of good and bad in both public and private schools. I know that is cliche, but its the truth. Even within a school there is great diversity from class to class. As for vouchers, I think it sounds great in theory, allowing low income minority students a chance to attend private schools. The CTA is of course officially opposed to it, but I don't know... Sometimes I feel like it might be worth a try. I am not sure it is the threat to public education as the teacher's union claims it to be. In fact it might make Public schools more competitive with programs to vie for students. (Please don't report me to the CTA!) Anyway that is my two cents worth!

[Guest]

Steve,

 

The CTA has been a client of mine in the recent past (insurance related matters), but I won't report you. For a fee, that is...

 

BTW, I was very interested in your point of view on this. Right now, I think I am with you in the "why not give it a try" sort of mentality. That all could change between now and election day.

 

MJ, you point is well taken and that is one of proponents' main arguments for vouchers.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pilafhead:
I don't like the idea of cookie cutter students. I think expressing yourself through clothes is fine (as long as they are not distracting nor offensive to others). The advantage to uniforms is that it allows kids without much money to not feel ashamed at school that they do not have the latest fashions (my mom really had a tough time with this when she was in school).

---

I think uniforms are necessary. There has to be some sense of discipline. I think that expression nowadays has gone too far. I mean, I go to public schools where I can wear just about anything. Removing the social class will make the learning environment more relaxed. People will be focusing on math, not 'what are the girls with the Abercrombie saying about me now?? so what if i go to kmart?!?'

I see this all the time. People being chastised because they can't afford decent clothes, etc. Then again, I go to one of the preppiest public schools in the state.

[Guest]

Now for my own two cents

 

Mike...Your child does deserve the best education he can get. I'll take your points one by one. You and your wife are excellent examples of why public education works. You say you went to an underfunded school. Yet you've done well, and you credit the AP system for that academic success. I think there's much to be said for AP classes, even in the worst of schools. I myself am a product of the GATE programs (gifted and talented--p-lease!!...lol). While there's nothing gifted or talented about me, simply being a part of that program and taking those classes gave me a leg up on the competition you speak of in college admissions. I completely understand your worries in that respect with regard to your son (any parent would worry about that), but I think a motivated student with involved parents will still do well, regardless of the school he/she went to. My high school happened to have incredible teachers teaching AP classes, I realize not all schools do. But I firmly believe it's up to the student to distinguish himself. I have given this example before in a different context, but I'll give it again. Back in high school, a girl from a private school transferred into our AP English class. Well, let's just say she had to rewrite every single paper she wrote for the class for the entire year. A good kid is a good kid is a good kid, in South Central or in Beverly Hills. Wouldn't you say? Now I realize you might argue that the appropriate learning tools might be absent from underfunded schools (such as textbooks, etc), but what is to prevent that child from digging up the information he needs from the library? I'm sure you understand my point.

 

Moving on: faced with increased competition for admissions to universities, what else can we do, you ask. You can be a supportive and involved parent, as I'm sure you intend to be. That alone compensates for many deficiencies a school might have, believe me. You say that because of certain students and/or parents at the school, many parents are pulling their kids out. I can't help but wonder: what possible difference does it make what kind of kids go to that school? I think your child can find the "right" kids to befriend and learn from who have the "right" parents (whatever that means). The attitude you have towards public schools is the attitude many well-to-do and involved parents have. My clients express the exact same sentiments nearly every day. I can't help thinking that if the most well educated and most involved parents have lost faith in the public school system the system has no chance of surviving. Yes, I think reform is much needed. However, the strata that has the resources to advocate for reform is pulling their kids out. I think that's shameful.

 

RE: uniforms. Desirable, but not necessary. lol...I have no problems admitting that during those torturous teenage years in school I wore hand-me-downs , yet believe me, not being able to compete with the rich girls in has not had the earthshattering traumatic consequences you'd think it would have had on my psyche...lol...I think that argument is deeply flawed.

 

Mike: your school had teachers that had no place being in a classroom? Well, so did mine and so does every school. What makes you think that private schools are any better? I think getting a teaching job in a private school is much easier than in a public school. I, for one, right now, without finishing my B.A., without having any credentials whatsoever, with a simple promise to take the CBEST could get a teaching job at a private school. Am I equipped to teach a classroom? (well, I'm confident enough to think so, lol) But it's arguable. You see my point.

 

Now Martin and his "low income people need private schools more than the others" I respectfully beg to differ My question is "why"? Why would the poor kids need private schools more? Is it that they're less intelligent? In my experience, no. Is it that they can't learn as well? No. Is it that their parents are less involved? Maybe. But you know, they care about their children just as much as you and Mike do. All it takes is for someone from the school to talk to them, just a couple of words and they'll give the world to help their children. I know, I've spoken those couple of words. Is it that they need more motivation? Maybe they do. But what makes us think that private schools motivate kids more? I'd think the opposite. If I'm a kid in a private school, my parents must (almost) necessarily be comfortable. Already that makes me want to compete less. I already have most everything. Why would I want to compete for the ability to have more? (I realize this is arguable, so don't shoot me )

 

 

Vouchers: Mike is right in pointing out that most of the poor kids would remain in public schools anyway and the vouchers would benefit those whose kids are already in private schools. If I'm a single parent making 20 grand a year and private school (let's say) costs 12 grand a year, even with the 4 grand Uncle Sam's giving me, there's no way in hell I can afford to pay the other 8 grand. So much for vouchers.

 

I want to expand a little on a point Steve made: there's diversity even within a school, from class to class. Very true. There are good teachers and bad teachers, good students and bad students, involved parents and those who couldn't care less, etc. It's not the school that matters, it's the child that matters.

 

I think my two cents became more like a nickel...lol

 

Gayane

[Guest]

"Now Martin and his "low income people need private schools more than the others" I respectfully beg to differ My question is "why"? Why would the poor kids need private schools more? Is it that they're less intelligent? In my experience, no. Is it that they can't learn as well? No. Is it that their parents are less involved? Maybe. But you know, they care about their children just as much as you and Mike do. All it takes is for someone from the school to talk to them, just a couple of words and they'll give the world to help their children. I know, I've spoken those couple of words. Is it that they need more motivation? Maybe they do. But what makes us think that private schools motivate kids more? I'd think the opposite. If I'm a kid in a private school, my parents must (almost) necessarily be comfortable. Already that makes me want to compete less. I already have most everything. Why would I want to compete for the ability to have more? (I realize this is arguable, so don't shoot me )"

 

Gayane, I think you misunderstand me. My children go to public school, and I am pretty happy with it. All depends where you live. In high-income area, a portion of the taxes of the residents go to supporting their public schools. Higher their income, higher the contribution. This allows the school to pay better salaries, attract better teachers, spend more money in their classrooms, etc. This has nothing to do with the kids, and most frequently, with the parents. But as much as I have observed, the parents in these neighborhoods, the so-called soccer-moms, get more involved. I think subsidizing the lower-income families, will allow them to take their children to better schools.

 

I am not saying this is the only solution, though. But it is a legitimate solution, I think.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gayane:
I think my two cents became more like a nickel...lol

---

I read it twice, so I received 10 cents worth! I agree with everything you said. A few sort of summary comments on my point of view:

--Good kids and involved parents will get a decent education wherever they attend.

--"Private" does not equal "good". However, by going the private route I can choose the best school for my son. I do not have that choice in the public schools.

--LA Unified is underfunded and not in the greatest shape because everyone with money, power and/or influence has pulled their kids out and therefore the County has been ignoring the needs of the underprivileged.

--Public schools are beginning to turn things around.


We are most concerned with violence in the public schools, not at Verdugo Woodlands, but rather Wilson Middle and Glendale High. I went to junior high and high school with gang problems (and this was in the 70s and early 80s!) and I do not want my son subjected to that. Plus, yesterday's gang issues seem like nothing compared to today's.

I recognize you cannot shelter your children from the ills of society, they need to learn how to deal with all kinds of people. But I can't send my son into potential wolves' dens.

My wife and I essentially have three criteria for private schools:

1) strong, more-or-less traditional academic program (neither of us are fans of the hippy-dippy, more free-form methodologies out there)

2) well-rounded, in that they offer music, sports and art programs

3) as diverse as possible (at least ethnically, if not also socio-economically)


I'm out of breath, and if I don't start getting some client work done around here, we wont have the money to send him to private school

Mike

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pilafhead:
--"Private" does not equal "good". However, by going the private route I can choose the best school for my son. I do not have that choice in the public schools.

Mike

---

I think this says all. In the past I have tried to switch my daughters school to another one - the westbound of the street used to go to one school, the eastbound to another. I was required to pay in excess of $6000.00 to do so, even though both were public schools.

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited October 19, 2000).]

[Guest]

Oh, that's interesting, Mike...you like traditional approaches better...(I know I'm digressing, but I have to say this..lol)

 

Myself, I'm a big fan of the "hippy-dippy" stuff...lol...great phrase, though...

 

I think what public schools need is more creative teachers. Lots of them. I've said before I was fortunate enough to have had a couple of great teachers whom I greatly admired and still admire today, both as people and as teachers. I would not be where I am today without these people. One was my English teacher (honors) and the other my speech/debate coach. To be honest, both were a little nuts, lol, but that's what made their classes so incredible. The point I'm trying to make is that great teaching isn't just about the academics. It's also about inspiring your students, believing in your students, pushing them to always go the extra mile, helping them explore who they are (especially K-12). The classic example is the teacher in the film "Dead Poets' Society" played by Robin Williams. And that's the kind of teaching you don't get from teachers using the traditional approach. So that's my beef with educators unwilling to push the bounds of tradition.

 

Sorry for the digression

Gayane

[Guest]

We went on our first school tour today--Polytechnic in Pasadena. Man, talk about traditional teaching in a creative manner! My wife and I were so impressed that we're depressed. Only 12 are accepted at the Kindergarten level and 200 apply! We should have gone in at pre-K when they have 34 spots, but there's probably three times the applicants, too.

 

They go for ethnic diversity which is in our favor. I didn't see too many (if any) Armenian faces around there--except for the Music Teacher, who coincidentally (or not) impressed me the most!

 

Next up are Chandler and Crestview...

 

[This message has been edited by Pilafhead (edited October 25, 2000).]